Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre
Environmental Research &
Monitoring Programme
Socio-Economic Study
Second Progress Report: Feb 2019
Impact Assessment Unit, Oxford Brookes University
2
Contents
1. Introduction: recap ---why research the socio-economic impacts of offshore wind farms?
2. The aims and methods of this European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre (EOWDC)
research project -- recap
3. Examining the evolving literature and reports – recap.
4. Monitoring and auditing the EOWDC project lifecycle; construction onshore and offshore;
into O&M – recent work.
5. Socio-economic content in recent Offshore Wind Farm Environmental Statements for UK
and other EU states – recent work.
6. Comparative studies of Offshore Wind Farm projects – recent work.
7. Next steps.
Research Team and contacts
Dr. Bridget Durning (management/admin lead)
Prof. John Glasson (research lead)
John Carnie
Tokunbo Olorundami
Kellie Welch
3
1. Introduction: why research the socio-economic impacts of offshore
wind farms?
There is an increasing momentum to include both socio-economic and bio-physical impacts in the
assessment of the potential impacts of major projects. This partly responds to the push for developers
to have a ‘Social Licence to Operate’ from the impacted community, from agencies such as the
International Finance Corporation/World Bank Group (IFC), with its required Environmental and
Social Sustainability Performance Standards (2012), and the International Association for Impact
Assessment (IAIA) with its Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment (2015). The revised EU
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive (2014) also gives a higher profile to population and
health impacts.
There is some history of assessing the socio-economic impacts of onshore wind farms, especially in
relation to landscape, noise, jobs and community benefits. However there has been much less for
offshore wind farms - out of sight out of mind? Yet, there are onshore elements to offshore projects,
and some offshore projects may be highly visible. There are now many UK Offshore Wind Farm
(OWF) projects with significant economic and social impacts (e.g. jobs, supply chain, community
benefits) at various spatial scales (from local to national and beyond). The UK OWF industry is now
very substantial and the largest in Europe (see Figures 1-3).
Figure 1: European OWF—Connected turbines and installed capacity in MW 2017.
Source: Wind Europe 2018
4
Figure 2: OWF project pipeline – 5 year outlook Source: WindEurope 2018
Figure 3: Offshore wind power—cumulative capacity to 2030
Source: Wind Europe 2018
5
2. The aims and methods of this EOWDC research project
Aims – to:
• Explore methods used to predict socio-economic impacts
• Compare predicted impacts with actual impacts
• Enhance understanding of OWF socio-economic impacts
• Highlight best practice in how to maximise local benefits
Methods – 4 parallel elements, to:
• Examine evolving socio-economic impacts literature, especially on OWFs
• Monitor the European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre (EOWDC) (Aberdeen OWF)
over the project lifecycle
• Review the socio-economic content in recent OWF Environmental Statements (ES) for
the UK and other EU states
• Compare EOWDC socio-economic impacts with other studies of OWFs: Beatrice,
Hornsea and floating OWFs
The focus of this Second Summary Progress Report is on the emboldened work programme
elements.
3. Examining the evolving literature and reports
A comprehensive literature review of socio-economic impacts of major projects, and especially OWFs,
has been undertaken (to be updated).
3.1 Some initial messages on generic socio-economic impacts of major projects
Socio-economic impacts include a growing range of impact types: direct economic; wider
indirect/induced economic; demographic; housing; other local services; socio-cultural; and
distributional (who gains/who loses from developments?). The focus tends to be on the more
quantifiable economic impacts, especially on local employment content, local supply chain
procurement, and other potential impacts on local businesses (e.g. on tourism). There can be issues
in prediction, with uncertainties about the actual nature of the project. The enhancement of socio-
economic benefits is evolving fast (e.g. promoting local supply chain and local employment), but there
is very little monitoring of predictions and on what socio-economic impacts actually happen in practice.
3.2 Some initial messages on the socio-economic impacts of OWFs
Findings from the literature show a focus on the economic impacts, especially local jobs and local
Gross Value Added (GVA) of the offshore element of the construction stage. There is little coverage
of the onshore element of OWFs, and very little coverage of social impacts. There are major local
economic leakages from OWFs; much of the offshore work is outsourced from well beyond the local
area. There is more local economic potential from the onshore element of projects (e.g. sub-station
connections; local port improvements). Also, do not underestimate the local significance of the
6
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) stage, which can bring more stable and long-standing impacts.
The impacts of multiple OWF developments can be cumulative, and can be a catalyst for port
development and other supply chain activities (e.g. set down areas, assembly and, in some cases,
fabrication facilities) (See Hornsea case in Section 6).
There is some good practice work on enhancement measures – especially the promotion of local
supply chain opportunities and on early community engagement – with the growing role of often
substantial Community Benefits Agreements. However there is very little hard evidence on socio-
economic impacts from monitoring studies. The graph below (Figure 4) shows the local job years for
East Anglia over the development stages from monitoring data for the small (60 MW) Scroby Sands
OWF. Robin Rigg provides another example of actual impact monitoring. Table 1 shows the range of
average UK-scale economic content for recent UK OWF projects for the DEVEX, CAPEX and OPEX
stages, with the highest UK content % for the OPEX (O&M) stage.
Figure 4: SQW analysis of Scroby Sands OWF supply chain analysis Source: SQW 2011
Table 1: 2017 Industry Report on UK Content
Source: RenewablesUK (2017)
Although there are similar attitudes and perceptions to onshore and offshore wind developments,
recent studies suggest that it is important to consider the meaning of the marine context and a
community’s attachment to the sea and seascape when assessing the social impact of OWF.
7
Research findings (eg. Firestone et al, 2012; Hattam et al, 2015) indicate that OWFs overall can have
a positive impact on well-being. Other findings show that early community engagement in the
development of an OWF can alleviate fears and uncertainty, which in turn has a positive effect on the
social impacts of an offshore development. Similarly, engagement throughout the development
process also contributes to equity and justice issues, with communities feeling that they are engaged
in decision-making about their future. Mitigation and enhancement methods, such as offering
community benefits, are also seen as positive, although they have also been interpreted by some
commentators as ‘bribes’ to the community.
4. Monitoring the EOWDC project lifecycle
4.1 Research aims, approach and issues
Aims
The in-depth study of the EOWDC provides the most detailed element of the research programme.
Through detailed monitoring of the EOWDC, over its lifecycle, the research aims to provide a more
robust evidence-base on actual socio-economic impacts, particularly at the local and regional level,
and so help to reduce uncertainties in future assessments. The research compares these, as far as
is possible, with the predicted impacts in the Environmental Statement (ES) for the project. Further,
as the consenting process in Scotland occurs at both national and local decision-making levels, it will
help inform impact assessment and consenting for OWF more widely.
The Aberdeen OWF is a relatively small OWF with 11 turbines/c with installed capacity of up to 96.8
MW. It is located 2.4km offshore. It is also an innovative project in terms of technology. It has offshore
and onshore elements; the latter includes a sub-station at Blackdog, and a 7.5 km cable connection
to SSE’s Dyce sub-station. Construction was completed in the Summer of 2018, and the first power
flowed into the grid in July of that year and was inaugurated in September 2018. The monitoring study
seeks to identify actual economic and social impacts for key steps in the lifecycle, including the pre-
construction, peak construction, and early operation and maintenance (O&M) stages.
Approach
The research approach included the following activities:
• regular meetings/telecoms with Vattenfall project staff
• workshops with representatives of local authorities/agencies and with the local Belhelvie
Community Council to explore evolving project impacts and responses
• various surveys through the lifecycle of the project which sought to identify actual socio-
economic impacts, included:
- workforce data from tier 1 (main-) and tier 2 (their key sub-) contractors - contracts data from Vattenfall and from the tier 1 and 2 contractors - local community benefits projects information from Vattenfall
- local community meetings and surveys on perceptions of impacts
- coverage of the project in the media
The research used a hierarchy of impact areas, from Scotland (Figure 5a) to Aberdeenshire/Aberdeen
(Figure 5b), to local Community Council (Figure 5c) as set out below. The particular focus has been
on identifying local impacts; local was taken as including Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire. This was
8
identified as the Inner Study Area in the Environmental Statement for the project. Scotland, including
the Inner Study area, was the Wider Study Area.
Figure 5a: Scotland study area
9
Figure 5b: Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen study areas
Figure 5c: Local study area
Data issues
The key data challenge has been on accessing, and disaggregating, employment and contract spend
data for the construction stage of the Aberdeen project. This involves a working relationship with the
tier 1 contractors, via Vattenfall. The current position on data availability is:
10
Good/useful: Vattenfall all contracts spending; major onshore contractor contracts data, and sub-
station workforce survey; local agency/community responses to construction stage surveys and
meetings. Media coverage over project lifecycle.
Limited/missing data: contract and workforce details for major offshore contractors; further community
perceptions of completed project. Missing data are being pursued, as far as possible, in early 2019.
4.2 Economic impacts: from predictions to actuals
Pre-construction stage (contracts) There were no employment and expenditure predictions for the pre-construction stage, but Vattenfall
has provided some data on actual project contracts, with a value totalling several millions. Several of
these contracts are with local firms and several others are with other Scottish firms in Glasgow,
Edinburgh and in other centres). Taken together, they bring an important share of the pre-construction
stage expenditure into Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire and Scotland at large.
Table 2: EOWDC some pre-construction contractors
Source: Vattenfall 2016
Construction stage—economic impacts (jobs and contracts) Employment predictions, in the Environmental Statement (ES), for the main construction stage were
of the order of 300 jobs for the Inner Study Area (Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire) (i.e. 150 jobs pa over
two year period) and 740 (370 pa) for the wider study area (Scotland). These include both onshore
and offshore jobs. There was an estimate of c30 jobs for onshore sub-station/connection work.
Contract expenditure predictions were Scotland GVA of £40m, of which £16m would be in the Inner
Study Area, all out of a total project cost of £260m. Calculation of actual employment and expenditure
has been difficult, especially for the offshore work.
11
For the onshore construction work, good data from the main contractor (sub-station/connection) and
estimates of SSEN work (cable to Dyce) indicate a small number of employees in total over a period
of about 12-18 months. Our survey work on the sub-station employees indicate over half of this
workforce came from the Inner Study Area, and most of the remaining from the rest of Scotland, with
some making a daily commute of over two hours. Most workers travelled to the site by car. Local
content estimates for the Dyce cable connector work are taken to be similar.
Figure 6: Number of workers that migrated to work on the sub-station project
Source: Sub-station site survey (Nov 2017)
Local multiplier impacts are likely to have increased the total employment impact for the period
involved, by an order of about 50%. Detailed contract and sub-contract data from the onshore sub-
station contractor indicates about 50% of contract spend in Scotland, with the bull in the Inner Study
Area.
We do not have detailed workforce data from the Tier 1 offshore contactors, but we do have some
useful estimates from the Vattenfall marine coordinators’ team for the Aberdeen project. This relates
primarily to peak construction (Spring 2018). At peak, there were very approximately 500 personnel
offshore on the installation vessels. A very broad mix of nationalities was involved in the project. There
were vastly more other Europeans (80%) compared with British (10%) and other nationalities (10%).
Dutch personnel constituted the largest group at peak construction. The turbine supplier noted that
due to the small nature of the EOWDC project and the resultant short construction period, a large
percentage of the overall personnel working on the project were sourced externally to the local area.
This was due to personnel already being employed, experienced, trained and skilled, and that existing
production facilities are already established outside of Scotland. Overall, with some allowance for
multiplier impacts, Inner Study Area employment associated with the offshore activities is likely to
have been lower than for the onshore works.
It is not easy to pin-down the detailed distribution of offshore construction stage contracts from the
EOWDC project, without more information from the tier 1 offshore work contractors. However, an
interim assessment from both Vattenfall and from our own analysis of the project’s overall contract
data indicate, as a minimum, the percentage share of the offshore construction work is at least 25%
for the UK as a whole, but with very much smaller percentages for Scotland and for
Aberdeen/Aberdeenshire. Again, a multiplier adjustment of approximately 50% would substantially
0
5
10
15
20
Yes No Unknown
12
increase the overall expenditure impact. The Aberdeen/Aberdeenshire local area expenditure
includes many small service based contracts, plus a few larger contracts.
Estimates of the total economic impact of the construction stage (onshore and offshore). Both
the total number of jobs and the contract expenditure are, based on current information, less for the
Inner and Outer Study areas than in the ES predictions. Of these estimates, the onshore work
currently appears to have the most significant local economic impact. However, the estimates of
actual expenditure are preliminary and may change as more information becomes available. Detailed
figures will be included in the Final Report.
O&M stage — economic impacts (jobs and contracts) Vattenfall and the turbine supplier will share the wind farm servicing for the first five years, after which
Vattenfall takes full control. O&M staffing is already in place in Aberdeen with about 10 Vattenfall
employees, and about 5 of the turbine supplier employees. Most staff are from Aberdeen and
Aberdeenshire. With long-term contracts over 20 years, there may be a higher multiplier impact,
increasing total job impacts to c30pa, giving a significant 600 FTE over the life of the project, and
roughly in line with the predicted O&M impacts.
Local contracts to support O&M operations include with Aberdeen Harbour Board, for quayside
space/facilities and Regent Centre space; crew transfer vessel; onshore balance of plant; and
offshore balance of plant. Some contracts are yet to be finalised. Currently, total O&M contracts are
of the order of £1m pa. With additional contracts, and multiplier impacts, the annual local supply chain
impact of contracts may be c £2m pa. With the addition of O&M employee expenditure, the total
annual impact of O&M activities may be of the order of £2-3m pa.
4.3 Social impacts: from predictions to actuals
Pre-construction and construction – social impacts
There is very little coverage of social impact issues in the Environmental Statement. The EIA
Technical Report focuses largely on economic impacts, but does note the potential of job creation to
reduce unemployment in the area, and to offset partially the anticipated contraction in employment in
other sectors such as oil and gas and manufacturing. The ES assessed the impacts on tourism, for
example from the visual effects on the landscape and seascape potentially to deter tourist visits, and
the effects on local coastal recreation activities, as of negligible significance.
Since the FID in July 2016, Vattenfall has implemented a proactive, two way community engagement
strategy, involving an extensive engagement with local residents and key local stakeholders,
providing briefings and attending meetings and events to inform and consult on the construction of
the windfarm (e.g. with the Belhelvie Community Council meeting, and Blackdog Residents
Association). The role of the Local Community Liaison Officer has been particularly significant in the
implementation of this successful strategy. A key component of the engagement strategy has been/is
educating and raising awareness of the renewable industry and the technology and innovations
associated with the AOWF project. This has involved, for example, working collaboratively with the
Aberdeen Science Centre to facilitate education-outreach sessions, workshops and events to deliver
relevant information in an interactive, accessible and engaging way.
13
There has been associated funding from Vattenfall for various community initiatives in support of
the engagement strategy. Over £80,000 in funding has been provided to date for a variety of local
causes including the Aberdeen Science Centre, Aberdeen Football Club, Belhelvie Girl Guides,
Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, Robert Gordon University and various other local
groups.
Social impacts of construction include a mix of quantitative and qualitative findings. The former,
including impacts on the housing market, local services, quality of life and community cohesion, are
difficult to disentangle from the impacts of other community activities, especially when they are quite
small in total, and somewhat diffuse. However, one specific location, the community of Blackdog, has
encountered some of the immediate impacts of the onshore construction, in particular of the
construction of the substation. Focus group discussions with the community, at the time of the
construction of the sub-station, raised a number of points, including:
• the community had been involved in the project from the planning stage, and it was
acknowledged that Vattenfall had engaged with the community more than would have been
expected;
• whilst there were local residents who were ‘very vocal’ in objecting to the development, it was
observed that there were ‘larger amounts who generally didn’t mind’;
• the area suffers from a historic legacy of landfill over 50 years and there were sentiments that
the community felt ‘blighted’, with multiple other developments including the Aberdeen
Western Peripheral Road, construction of 600 homes, construction of a multiplex, industrial
estate and gypsy travellers site;
• there has been some impact on community cohesion from the construction phase with some
community members continuing to oppose strongly the development and to monitor
construction activities (especially traffic); and
• perceptions on potential local benefits included whether the community would receive cheaper
electricity (question asked at a public meeting). It was noted that the main financial community
benefits would probably only come once the project was operational.
Wider, more perceptual findings, included views as portrayed in the local press, and some local
surveys by the team. A small survey by the project team of visitors to the Vattenfall Renewable Energy
Exhibition, held in Aberdeen Library in February 2018 (around the time of peak construction), provided
a general overview of local views on renewable energy, and particularly on offshore wind. Most
respondents were well aware of the different types of renewable energy, especially onshore wind,
offshore wind and solar. There were positive views on offshore wind. Comments included, for
example: sense of pride-demonstrating Scotland’s commitment to renewables; I love the look of
windfarms, they are beautiful; clean energy is beneficial to everyone; benefits for jobs and the
environment; can take over when oil runs out. There were far fewer negative comments, but some
examples included: possible disruption to wildlife/sealife; disruptive onshore infrastructure; visual
disbenefits.
A more recent small survey (Jan 2019) of local residents at the launch of the community benefits fund,
with most of the respondents from the Balmedie, Belhelvie and Inverurie areas, reinforces these
views. There was strong support for renewable energy from offshore wind. For the EOWDC,
respondents were asked for their views on local impacts over the project lifecycle. Views were overall
neutral on the developer’s assessment, communication and management of potential impacts before
and during project construction. A summary of the views on impacts five months into operation are
set out in Table 3. Most are as expected, or not experienced, with the clear exception of visual
14
impacts. There was considerable surprise for some respondents at the size and nearness to shore of
the windfarm – the visual scale was unexpected (although this should not necessarily be interpreted
as a negative response). Some (‘a fairly small minority’) are against the windfarm as it ‘spoils the view’
whereas others are very positive and some just ‘aren’t that bothered’. There was a view that the
community benefit fund will ‘help’ with acceptance. A further on-line survey is underway to seek to
further assess changing views from the wider Aberdeen/shire community over the lifecycle of the
project to date.
Table 3: Broad findings on community experience five months into operation of the AOWF
More than expected
As expected
Less than expected
Not experienced
a) Traffic impacts 0 7 2 16
b) Visual impacts of the onshore component of windfarm
4 10 3 8
c) Project bringing benefits to local economy 1 11 4 9
d) Project providing local employment opportunities
0 9 2 14
e) Project bringing change to the community character
1 6 5 13
f) Visual impacts during installation of the turbines
10 9 4 2
g) Project providing local education opportunities
1 11 3 10
h) Project bringing social benefits 1 8 4 12
Source : Project survey 2019
A review of the coverage of the project in the press and social media has also been undertaken.
Findings from the period July 2016 to August 2017 (Box 1) show a generally positive reponse to the
project and to its implications for the region. Further in depth review of this material, and of
subsequent material through to the present day, is in hand.
O&M stage – social impacts
A key feature of the late construction/ early O&M stage to date has been the development of the
Aberdeen OWF Community Benefits Fund (CBF). This has built on pioneering Scottish guidance,
as well as on other UK and international examples (see Haggett 2017). The Local Community Liaison
Officer followed up such guidance with discussions with local stakeholders and an online survey of
the local community on various options and priorities for the Aberdeen CBF. The positive outcome is
a CBF of £150,000 pa for 20 years. It applies to the whole of Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire, but
with 10% (ie £15,000) pa ringfenced for Blackdog projects.
There will be two levels of application—small projects, and large projects. Through the adminstrator
Foundation Scotland, support is offered to communities to develop ideas and approaches to make
the most of the funding and achieve maximum impact. The first invitation for applications to the fund
commenced in January 2019. This fund is a major additional, social and economic benefit, for the
O&M stage, which, with multipier impacts, is likely to generate a substantial social return on
investment. If the claims made for the equivalent Beatrice Fund (NEF, 2017) were to eventuate for
15
the Aberdeen Fund, the £3m fund might deliver total social benefits of up to £9m (at current prices)
over the life of the project.
Box 1: Summary of early press and other media comment on the project
News clipping review (1-2-19) This provides a brief summary of an initial first stage review of the clippings collected by Vattenfall Local
Community Liaison Officer between July 2016 (when Vattenfall announced the Aberdeen Windfarm
programme) and August 2017. It represents only partial findings from this part of the study focusing on the
general sentiment of the media reporting. Clippings reviewed are from newspapers (UK, Scottish and local),
business and technical news sites (web based), TV and radio. We have not reviewed press releases from
Vattenfall.
Newspapers
28 clippings were collected during the period of which 19 were in July 2016 (when it was announced the
windfarm would go ahead), 2 were in August 2016 (when the EOWDC research programme was
announced) and 4 in August 2017 (3 relating to the award of contract to Peterhead Port and 1 relating to
the launch of the research programme). Nearly all the clippings from July 2016 included reference to Trump
opposition to the windfarm (Guardian and Reuters also referred to ‘Brexit’). The majority expressed positive
aspects to the development for the region e.g. ‘enormous opportunity’, ‘positive opportunity’, whilst also
referring to Trump views on the development. However, in the majority of clippings the overall sentiment
was one of positivity.
Business/Technical internet sites
61 ‘clippings’ from reports on business/technical sites were reviewed. Their focus was on: Vattenfall
announcing the project would go ahead; the launch of the research programme and the announcement of
the contract to Peterhead Port. For the latter there were a number of positive statements on what this would
mean for business in the area.
TV/Radio
8 ‘clippings’ from TV and Radio were reviewed. These referred either to Vattenfall announcing the
development would go ahead or to the award of the contract to Peterhead Port. All were positive on what
the implications would mean for the region and for Scotland although three also referred to Trump.
There will be more in depth analysis of all media coverage (including accessible social and other media
posts, via for example Twitter and YouTube), plus further work on clippings collected for the period beyond
August 2017, in the second stage of the media review.
16
5. Recent socio-economic content in OWF Environmental Statements
5.1 Aim and approach
The focus of this element of the research is the socio-economic content of Environmental Statements
(ESs) and relevant decision documents for OWF consent applications since the start of 2010 – for
developments with a minimum capacity of 50 MW. We have reviewed the ESs for 24 UK OWF
projects, and 12 non-UK OWF projects (Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Ireland).
The purposes of the review are to document the extent and nature of the socio-economic coverage;
trends over time; new issues; evolving methodology; and to explain variations in predicted socio-
economic assessment impacts (e.g. variations by size of project; developer; country; location in
relation to the coast etc). A standard pro-forma has been used to aid the comparisons.
5.2 UK studies
The UK review includes 24 projects ranging in size from 50 MW to 2400MW. In total, the ESs contain
proposals for over 15GW of power. This very brief summary sets out some of the findings from the
substantial ES review exercise, and from the detailed appendix summarising the socio-economic
content of each ES:
• All the UK ESs include a section on socio-economic effects, but there is considerable variation
in length of coverage (eg from 17pp for Blyth Demonstration to over 150 pp for the Atlantic
Array and Moray East). Although there is evidence of considerable growth in the size of OWF
ESs and projects over time (eg. Hornsea 3 at 2400MW) (Howard 2013), the socio-economic
element has not grown substantially, and the content in the more recent ESs is normally in the
range of 50-100 pages. However, precision is difficult, as some studies have additional
17
appendices, and extra sections sometimes required by examination bodies. Of course, length
of coverage does not always equate with depth and quality of coverage.
• The bulk of the ESs come under the National Significant Infrastructure Planning regime
(Planning Act 2008), and many of the OWFs are now in operation or under construction. The
developers include international energy companies such as DONG (now Ørsted), Vattenfall,
and SSE which are each responsible for promoting several projects. There are also several
other single project-specific developers. Several major consultancies, such as Royal
Haskoning and RPS, have undertaken the studies, with increasing use of subcontracting
content to firms that specialize in this field, such as Regeneris and SQW.
• There is much more coverage of economic than social (with a ratio of about c 5:1). This may
reflect the more quantitative and measurable nature of economic impacts. The relative
coverage of social impacts appears even less in some of the most recent ESs, many of which
are for projects that are a long distance offshore, and several social impacts (e.g on
accommodation and health) are scoped out of the assessment from the beginning. ESs clearly
recognise the variations in socio-economic impacts over the OWF life cycle. Most include both
the construction and the operation and maintenance (O&M) stages, and increasingly the
decommissioning stage. By far the most attention is for the construction stage. Some studies
make clear distinctions between the onshore and offshore activities, but for many this is not
clear, and the focus is primarily on the offshore activities. This is unfortunate as the onshore
can have important local socio-economic impacts. There is only limited coverage of cumulative
impacts. For many ESs, there is little or no mention of the monitoring of socio-economic
impacts, although there are some notable recent exceptions (e.g. Beatrice, Hornsea, and
Norfolk Vanguard).
• The ES economic focus is on employment especially, and on supply chain and Gross Value
Added (GVA) impacts. There is also coverage of some related sector impacts, especially on
tourism and fishing for offshore works, and on agriculture for the onshore cable route. In all of
the studies, there is a dominance of baseline scene - setting before the coverage of the impact
assessments. On methodology, there is evidence of increasing sophistication from early
studies where there is only a vague description of the approach used, through to more studies
using a scenario approach, and some studies using an Input-Output modelling approach. The
scenario approach is the most popular, and provides a way of allowing for uncertainty in relation
to (i) port location, especially for the construction stage, and (ii) amount of UK supply chain
content. In some cases, there is also use of a ‘Rochdale-envelope’ worst-case scenario
approach. The scenarios normally have three levels – low/medium/high – of local/regional/UK
supply chain content. However, there are many interesting variations to the nature of the
low/medium /high scenarios (e.g. Triton Knoll: with high assuming 70-100% UK sourcing;
medium 50% of high and low 10% of medium; East Anglia 3: with high assuming 55% UK
sourcing; medium 35% and low 20%).
• Much depends on port location and most studies are unclear on this issue, arguing that it will
depend on the specification and sourcing of key construction elements (turbines, blades etc).
Some projects (eg Dogger Bank Creyke Beck) argue that the port location issue negates any
detailed economic analysis. However, as particular ports become used for actual construction
and O&M stages for live projects, the port locations for subsequent projects (often next in a
sequence at a broad location) should hopefully become easier to identify in the ES (?). There
is also the issue of what is local and/or regional in terms of economic impact. Some studies
avoid specification altogether. Where it is included there is some focus on adjacent coastal
local areas, although there is considerable variation in approach.
18
• The specification of potential employment associated with OWFs is not clearly discernible from
the ESs, and predicted employment can vary widely between impact scenarios. For example,
as noted in Section 6, for the Beatrice project total local area job years predictions vary from
400-1800 for the construction stage, and from 3200-6000 for the total O&M stage, for low and
high scenarios. For Hornsea 3, construction employment estimates range from 120 (low
scenario) to 2140 (medium scenario) to 4060 (high scenario) for the Humber local area pa. In
addition, for some ESs it is not clear whether the figures used are for the whole project life
cycle or just for a key stage (normally construction). If for construction, is the figure for peak
employment or again for total FTEs? There are also frustrating issues of which spatial level is
being used, and for which scenario? One increasing area of consistency is the practice of using
a Direct plus Indirect and Induced approach to employment impacts, although there is
considerable variation in the size of multipliers used.
• Notwithstanding these problems, which do limit the utility of findings, the research sought to
identify a range of potential local and regional employment impacts for total construction and
for each O&M year, using a job per project MW size approach. These figures include Direct
plus Indirect and Induced. For total construction FTEs, the forecast jobs per MW range from
about 0.2 (local/low impact scenario), to about 0.5 (local/medium impact scenario) to about 1.5
(regional/medium impact scenario). For O&M the annual FTE per MW over the 20-25 year life
of the project is much less, and may be of the order of 0.15-0.2 per MW for a regional /medium
impact scenario. Almost all the ESs provide some significance assessment of the potential
employment impacts. All assessments see construction employment impacts as positive, but
perhaps surprisingly, very few ESs assess them as of major significance, with medium or minor
as equally likely to be the level of significance (local and regional?). For O&M employment,
assessment is in almost all cases assessed as minor positive.
• Many of the ESs include the potential wider economic/GVA impacts associated with OWFs,
although it is not always possible to be specific and to make comparisons based on the review
of the ESs. There is again a use of a scenario approach. Over time there has also been
increasing use of guidance from sources such as of HM Treasury’s Green Book (2013),
Scottish Enterprise (SE) Additionality and Economic Impact Assessment Guidance Note
(2008), and NPS Energy projects guidance. A few studies have used an Input-Output analysis
approach to predict direct and indirect/induced economic impacts for the various OWF project
stages, for example the Beatrice study. On average, predicted local/regional GVA per MW is
of the order of £ 0.1-0.5 m for the total construction stage, and c £ 0.04m pa for the O&M stage
(the latter averaging about £15-20 m pa for the total project for medium size projects; and up
to £50m for very large projects). It is likely that there will be less difference between the low
case and high case scenarios for the O&M stage, as there is likely to be more opportunity for
local sourcing of the goods and services involved. The significance assessment is similar to
that for employment effects.
• Several of the ESs also include discussion of the potential impact of the project on other
economic sectors, especially on tourism and fishing. For the construction stage, the ESs
assess the impacts on tourism as negative, and of minor and in some cases of medium
significance, drawing on previous studies of the impacts on tourism of both onshore and
offshore wind farms. There are fewer mentions of the negative impact on fishing from the
construction stage; where mentioned they are seen as minor negative, but major in one
important North Sea fishing area. There are also a few minor negative mentions of the impact
of onshore cable laying on local agricultural activities. The findings are similar for the O&M
stage, although there is occasional mention of the potential tourism value of OWFs.
19
• The coverage of social impacts of OWFs is disappointing. Many ESs give little coverage at all.
Some briefly mention social impacts, especially potential construction workforce impacts on
housing and local services. A few go further in their coverage of demographic impacts, housing
and local services impacts and impacts on local quality of life (QoL). However, even in the latter
cases there is normally a lack of depth with respect to specific issues, for example of impact of
projects on community demographics, cost of housing, community wellbeing and perceptions.
Overall, there appears to be a general assumption that social impacts are not important for
OWF developments and many can be scoped out altogether. Methodology is largely
descriptive and qualitative; there is a predominant use of professional judgement and
comparative studies. Several ESs regard social impacts as deriving from the economic and
environmental conditions, with economic impacts, especially employment, providing a measure
of social impacts.
• In some ESs, for the construction stage, there is mention of the potential impacts of the
workforce on housing and local services, and occasional mention of impacts on community
cohesion and QoL; some of these comments related to onshore works, including the
disturbance of the construction of substations and cable laying. In most cases, the ESs
assessed significance as minor and negative. However, some studies also identified potential
positive impacts, including enhanced training opportunities and demographic shifts with the
attraction of more young people into the host area. For the O&M stage there was even less
coverage of social issues, other than some limited mention of continuing visual impacts
(negative/minor) and upskilling opportunities (positive/minor). A likely future topic, which was
surfacing in recent studies, was the opportunity for community benefits initiatives.
• In many studies, there is only limited evidence of the role of public participation to assess such
impacts, yet this is important for socio-economic issues. However, there is some evidence in a
few studies. Appropriate stakeholder consultation is a requirement under the English National
Infrastructure regime. For example, the Norfolk Vanguard ES reports considerable consultation
work with local community/local stakeholders. “The project employed a Local Liaison Officer
and Skills and Education Champion based in Norfolk, as well as procured support from a
Norwich based Public Engagement agency. The project has continued to deepen and broaden
engagement with organisations that support and represent the interests of people and
businesses local to landfall, onshore cable route, onshore project substation and National Grid
substation, and in the region”.
• The ESs are limited on consideration of mitigation and enhancement measures. However,
there is some evidence of a growing focus on the provision of incentives to get the community
involved in the project through, for example, training and educational incentives aimed at up-
skilling and training in the local communities. There is also increasing use of special
initiatives/protocols for local businesses to get involved in the supply-chain for the project.
Mitigations/enhancements are more oriented towards enhancing economic gains and less
towards social well-being (although having a job can bring all kinds of social benefits).
• With regard to cumulative socio-economic impacts across projects, coverage is partial with
some limited recognition of the need to mitigate potential pressures on local labour demand,
but more on the potential enhancement opportunities for delivering significant wider
local/regional economic benefits in combination with other local OWFs. There is an emerging
recognition of the importance of a tiering approach as a way of managing the growing number
of OWFs, especially in the North Sea.
• There is little evidence of monitoring in most of the ES reviewed so far. There is some
advantage for some projects in drawing on earlier projects in the same area, although
20
surprisingly there is little or no evidence of any systematic monitoring of earlier projects to assist
in this (although difficult if projects not yet under construction). Recent English ESs are moving
towards the good practice inclusion of a requirement for an Employment and Skills Plan, or
equivalent, to support effective implementation of socio-economic undertakings (predominantly
economic).
5.3 Other EU state studies
This aspect of the research included reviewing the socio-economic content of 12 OWF ESs from five
countries: Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland and Sweden. The research included difficulties
additional to those encountered for the UK study, including tracing all relevant documentation,
language challenges, changes to legislation and process over time, and limited number of reviews
bunched in a short timescale. This brief review provides summary reports on findings from two
countries only -- Denmark and the Netherlands.
Denmark
• All four ESs reviewed included a section or report covering socio-economic impacts. Three of
the ESs included separate reports for offshore and onshore. Across the four ESs, there is
variation in page number allocated to the socio-economic aspect, with estimates complicated
by referral to other chapters. Vesterhav South separated health, population and recreation
impacts from socio-economic impacts. Kriegers Flak ES included a separate population, health
and socio-economic report (69 pages) as did Horns Rev (35 pages). The developers included
major international energy companies such as DONG (now Orsted), and Vattenfall.
• There is greater coverage of economic than social impacts. Kriegers Flak was an exception
with more detail regarding social impacts, including in particular barrier effects. There is
recognition of variations in socio-economic impacts between the construction and the O&M
stages; there is less detailed coverage of the decommissioning stage (sometimes predicted to
have the same impact as construction). Most attention is concentrated on the construction
stage.
• The key economic topics considered are tourism (onshore and offshore); commercial fishing,
shipping; traffic; mining; and agriculture/forestry. The coverage of employment is variable and
largely neglected for two of the projects. GVA (Gross Value Added) and input-output studies
were not included in any of the ESs. There is little original analysis; employment figures, when
included, draw largely on data from previously established windfarms. There is a presentation
of combined construction and operation figures, but with separation of direct, indirect and
induced employment numbers. Local impacts are the primary consideration in these studies;
regional implications typically focus on commercial fishing; nationally the content is around
energy policy and renewable targets. The ESs do not provide a significance assessment of the
potential employment impacts but, where stated, the assessment of employment impacts is
generally positive.
• The coverage of social impacts and impacts on local quality of life is minimal. Recreation is
one focus, along with changes in ferry trip duration and noise levels. Kriegers Flak proved an
exception covering social impact more broadly and did address the effect on accommodation
and housing. As with the UK reviews there is a lack of depth with respect to impact of projects
on community demographics, cost of housing, community wellbeing (increased vehicular
movements, diversions etc), and on crime and community cohesion. There is no
21
disaggregation of distributional impacts on various community groups (eg young/old; M/F).
There are some examples of using the public consultation phase to help determine impacts of
the prospective windfarm.
• Mitigation measures typically include measures to reduce noise, and the visual impact of the
OWF via appearance of the turbines and positive landscaping, plus where possible the
planning of construction activities out of season. There is little or no mention of monitoring for
socio-economic impact.
Netherlands
• The three ESs reviewed were produced between 2015 and 2016. Two of them are in the
Netherlands EEZ windfarm zone; they fall under the responsibility of the State rather than
individual developers and the National Water Plan (2015) and the Netherlands Offshore Wind
Energy Act (2015) provide a strategic level of assessment. This led to them taking the same
topics and format, and with no direct reference to socio-economic impacts. In contrast, the
Fryslan development, which is not in the zone and is located nearshore (next to a dam), has
some coverage of socio-economic impacts, both onshore and offshore. The OWF developers
include major international energy companies -- Orsted and Ventolines BV. Pondera
consultants are responsible for all the ESs reviewed.
• The Fryslan study includes impacts on employment, but these are minimal and not broken
down into the project stages nor rated for impact significance. Fryslan also includes noise and
shadow, electromagnetic radiation as well as impacts associated with housing. A positive
impact on local accommodation due to increased employment is anticipated
• All the ESs include potential impacts on tourism, commercial fishing and shipping/sailing.
Studies draw on background information (largely qualitative) obtained from other windfarms,
related studies and academic articles. Determining the economic impacts on tourism and
recreation was key for all ESs; Fryslan has its own research study carried out by the European
Tourism Futures Knowledge Institute (ETFI).
• There is coverage of cumulative impacts of additional wind farms on fishing, sailing safety and
landscape. The Hollandse Kust Zuid I project included interesting research on the cumulative
impact of the windfarms on weather and cloud movement.
5.4 Some summary overall findings and best practice lessons for the future
• UK comparisons with other EU studies indicate that socio-economic impacts, in terms of topics
covered in this report (especially employment, GVA, wider economic development and supply
chain, demography, housing, local services and community wellbeing) are much more fuller
discussed in UK ESs than in ESs for OWFs in the other EU countries examined for this project.
Indeed, ESs in these other countries cover socio-economic impacts very thinly, if at all; in some
cases decisions over whether impacts are acceptable had been pre-determined at an earlier
strategic level when the windfarm ‘zone’ was set. However, there is some overlap in the
potential impacts of OWFs on other economic sectors, especially on tourism and fishing.
• Socio-economic impact assessment is now an established element of ESs for UK OWFs, but
with a very clear economic focus on employment and wider economic development. Social
impacts are thinly covered, and there appears to be a tendency for some of the more recent,
and very large (and quite distant from shore) projects, to scope them out almost completely.
• On methodology, the use of a scenario approach with wide ranges of economic impacts can
create considerable uncertainty on understanding the potential scale of such impacts for local
22
and regional stakeholders. The port location issue underpins much of the scenario approach.
However, as particular ports become used for actual construction and the O&M stages for
operational projects, the port locations for subsequent projects (often next in a sequence at a
broad location) should hopefully become easier to identify in the ES, allowing clearer
predictions to be made.
• The focus of assessment tends to be on the construction stage. However, it is also important
to recognise the importance and local potential of the much longer-term impact of the O&M
stage. A topic of growing importance for the 20-25 years project lifecycle is the opportunity for
community benefits initiatives, which can be substantial.
• With more UK OWF developments, especially in the North Sea, cumulative issues become
more significant. There is a recognition of the importance of a tiering approach as a way of
managing the impact assessment of a growing number of OWFs.
• Recent English ESs are moving towards the good practice inclusion of a requirement for an
Employment and Skills Plan, or equivalent, to support effective implementation of socio-
economic undertakings (predominantly economic).
6. Comparative studies of OWF projects
6.1 Range of comparative studies
The project has two main comparative OWF studies to provide examples of the socio-economic
impacts of larger projects and the cumulative impact of several projects. These are Beatrice, located
in the Moray Firth, and the Hornsea projects, which are part of a cluster of North Sea OWF projects
located well off the coast of Humberside. Our first comparative study focused on the Beatrice project.
We now also have an initial study of the Hornsea cluster. In addition we have also added studies of
the two small floating OWFs adjacent to the Aberdeen project, Hywind and Kincardine, to provide two
local and different type of comparator projects. Hywind is now in place, as is part of the Kincardine
project.
6.2 Beatrice (as for Progress Report 1)
Beatrice is a 588MW project, with 84 turbines and Capex of £2.6 bn. It lies 13.5 km off the Caithness
coast, and will be connected to the grid via a 65 km cable route to Portgordon on the Moray coast,
and then onland to a new sub-station at Blackhillock, Keith (Figure 7). The construction project is
roughly on the same timetable as the Aberdeen project. First power was exported in July 2018, and
the project will be fully operational in 2019. The Beatrice ES predictions use very wide ‘low-to-high
case’ socio-economic scenarios. For example, local area job years predictions vary from 400-1800
for the construction stage, and from 3200-6000 for the O&M stage.
Some interim conclusions on the Beatrice socio-economic study show a strong focus on economic
impacts, especially GVA and employment, with very little on social impacts until the advent of the £6m
Community Benefits Fund (CBF). The economic leakages out of the study area/Scotland are however
high at 80% capital expenditure (Capex). The local study area is likely to gain most from the O&M
stage, and the development of the ports at Wick and Buckie to service the project appear to be
meeting local expectations for the project. Beatrice Opex figures are not yet available.
The project does have some good practice socio-economic impact lessons. For example, there is an
attempt to monitor the actual economic impacts using an Input-Output model, and to estimate the
23
wider impacts of the CBF using a Social Return on Investment model.There is also an innovative two
tier approach to the distribution of the CBF, although there were some local queries about the nature
of the process used to arrive at the size and nature of the fund. The project also exemplifies the
significant cumulative impacts from the project: sustaining a Scottish supply chain and enhancing key
infrastructure, especially a network of Scottish port sites which may be of considerable significance
for future offshore renewable energy projects.
Figure 7: Key elements of the Beatrice OWF project
Source: Beatrice OWF website
6.3 Hornsea 1- 4
Taken together, the four Hornsea projects, as and when fully developed, will constitute one of the
largest clusters of OWF energy worldwide, with potentially up to 900 very large turbines, and around
7GW of power. They provide a major contrast to the single c600MW Beatrice project, and the small
90MW Aberdeen project. They also lie in an area of the North Sea where there are many more large
OWFs at various stages of development. They also lie off a major port and industrialised coast,
including the ports of Hull, Grimsby and Immingham. As such, the Hornsea case study provides an
example of offshore wind farm development on a large scale, with the potential for substantial supply
chain development, associated production/fabrication initiatives, and cumulative impacts. The key
features of the four projects are set out in Table 4, and their broad North Sea locations in Figure 8.
24
Project
Key features
Hornsea 1
Hornsea 1 - 170 turbines of 7MW, 1.2GW, 103km offshore. The project was consented in Dec 2014, following an Examination under the English national infrastructure regime. Onshore construction began in early 2016; offshore construction is also underway and by late 2018, there is installation of about one third of the offshore foundations and monopiles. The cable connection comes ashore south of Grimsby and runs for c 40miles to a sub-station at Killingholme on the Humber Estuary.
Hornsea 2
Hornsea 2 - 165 turbines of 8.4 MW, 1.4GW, 89km offshore. This project followed the same examination process and received development consent in Aug 2016. Onshore sub-station construction works began in 2018. The cable route follows that for Hornsea 1, to the same sub-station.
Hornsea 3
Hornsea 3 – 2.4GW, up to 400 turbines, 120km offshore. This is the largest proposed UK OWF to date; the developer submitted an ES with an application for development consent in 2018 and the project is currently under examination by PINS National Infrastructure. Unlike the first two projects, the 120km offshore cable corridor for Hornsea 3 runs to the North Norfolk coast.
Hornsea 4 Hornsea 4 – will have a maximum of 180 turbines. This most recent of the Hornsea projects is currently (in 2018) at the scoping stage of the planning and application process. The provisional cable corridor is routed to come ashore south of Bridlington in Yorkshire.
Table 4: The set of Hornsea OWFs
All of the project ESs include substantial chapters on socio-economic impacts, some including
methodology appendices. They have a focus on the construction stage economic impacts, with a
distinction between onshore and offshore impacts. The early projects do include also limited
consideration of social impacts, but what is particularly noticeable in the Scoping Report for Hornsea
4 is the scoping out of many of the more social/community impacts. There is a narrow focus on
economic impacts, with an anticipation of recruitment of much of the substantial construction
workforce from the local and regional community.
The economic predictions for Hornsea projects 1-3 display great variability and uncertainty. For
example, for the construction stage in total for Hornsea 1, the low impact scenario for the local area
is only about one tenth of the medium impact scenario for sourcing, employment and GVA. The
outcome from the examination was a move towards a low/medium scenario, so the predictions shifted
to somewhere in the middle of the wide range between the two sets of predictions.
Cumulatively the Hornsea projects provide a set of overlapping socio-economic impacts, with the
medium scenarios for projects 1 and 2 averaging about 1000 local construction jobs pa, and project
3 double that number. Similarly, the O&M stage is very significant cumulatively, with annual estimates
25
of jobs pa under a probably realistic medium scenario of 308(H1), 450 (H2) and 620 (for the large H3
project, but high scenario), giving over 1000 jobs pa over much of the combined project life cycles.
Figure 8: Location of the Hornsea projects (1-4)
The Dong/ Orsted Hornsea projects, which themselves follow on other earlier Humberside OWF
projects (e.g Humber Gateway, Westermost Rough ), indicate the strengths of a pipeline of projects
for substantial local and regional socio-economic impact. A report on Dong investments in the Humber
area, notes that:
In order for the offshore wind sector to have a sustainable economic benefit in the Humber Region a
series of investments over a long period is critical. The nature of the sector is such that there is a
large level of activity during the construction phase including manufacture and installation of
components (typically over one to three years), followed by a smaller, sustained level of activity in the
ongoing O&M of the wind farm. This means that a one-off wind farm development in an area would
have limited sustained economic impact, because workers based temporarily in the area, who would
move on once the construction was completed, would deliver most of the local construction phase
activity. In the Humber, however, the group of wind farm developments over 10+ years has provided
the area with the opportunity to establish a stronger foothold in the sector, secure inward investment
and enable local businesses to gain access to supply chain opportunities (Regeneris, 2015).
Examples of that inward investment include: Siemen’s £310m investment in a new turbine factory in
Hull which, as well as creating an expected 1100 new direct jobs, will create further supply chain
opportunities. Other activities include approval of the Able Marine Energy Park on the Humber, a
26
bespoke £450m bespoke port facility for the renewable energy sector, particularly offshore wind.
Dong/Orsted has also invested £200m in the establishment of a major OWF O&M servicing base in
Grimsby Docks which became operational in Spring 2018, creating at least a further 200 jobs. In
combination, the OWF developments and linked onshore investments all enhance the identification
of the Humber as a major OWF hub. In addition, an East Coast Community Fund, currently for the
Hornsea 1 and Race Bank projects, commits up to £465,000 pa for the 20 years of O&M, for a wide
range of local community and environmental initiatives.
6.4 Hywind and Kincardine floating OWFs
As well as the Aberdeen project, there are two other significant offshore windfarm projects in the
immediate Northeast Scotland area: the five turbine, 30 MW, floating Hywind Scotland Pilot Park
Project (Peterhead) which is now operational and the eight 6MW floating Kincardine Offshore
Windfarm turbines project, which has now partially started generating. Given the close proximity of
the three Northeast Scotland offshore windfarms it is useful to assess the approach and methodology
taken; this may assist in providing for an eventual more integrated and comprehensive assessment
for all stakeholders involved in these projects in this area. These two projects also provide an
opportunity to explore any particular socio-economic impacts associated with the new offshore
floating windfarm technology.
Hywind
The Hywind OWF is located 25km east of Peterhead and with a landfall location for the connector
cable being in Peterhead itself. Assumptions used for the socio-economic impact assessment were
total capital expenditure for the project of £150m, equating to £5m per MW installed and £100m O&M
spend over a 20-year timescale, based on £5 million pa average spend. There were two impact
scenarios, varying according to the amount of construction and installation work provided from outside
Scotland. In practice, the outcome has been the non-Scotland scenario. The actual construction work
for the turbines took place at Stord in Norway during 2017. In November 2018 Halvor Hoen Hersleth,
plant manager for the project, said a “lower” number of local companies competed for contracts for
the project than expected. However, he confirmed that Northeast firms could do more to win orders
and that in the O&M stage there is almost none of the work that could not be done locally once the
industry was in place.
Kincardine
Kincardine Offshore Windfarm Limited (KOWL) is a company formed by Pilot Offshore Renewable
Energy (PORL) and Atkins Ltd. PORL is an Aberdeen based joint venture between MacAskill
Associates Ltd and Renewable Energy Ventures (Offshore) Ltd. Both are Scottish companies with
extensive experience in the wind industry. KOWL was established in order to develop, finance,
construct, operate, maintain and decommission the Kincardine Offshore Windfarm. In contrast to the
Hywind project, the Kincardine project uses a more ad-hoc/professional judgement approach, with no
monetary valuations put upon the impacts, and a very high-level assessment of potential jobs. An
interesting aspect of the project is the use of the Kishorn dry dock in Wester Ross, a site unused for
23 years, for the fabrication of the semi-spar substructure for the floating turbines. The project began
exporting power in October 2018 with 1 x 2MW unit turbine. The developer plans to install six more
floating wind turbines at the site, each with an individual output of up to 8.4MW, in 2019/20.
27
Floating and Aberdeen OWF socio-economic impact assessment comparisons
It seems reasonable to assume that floating windfarms would have more flexibility in construction
location than conventional OWFs, with the possibility of generating very little construction stage socio-
economic impacts in their final destination location. This does seem to be the case for the Hywind
project. In contrast, the Kincardine project does provide an example of where there can at least be
some regional benefits, if an appropriate construction base is available. For the O&M stage, there
may be more similarity in socio-economic impacts with conventional OWFs. Table 5 provides a
summary of some of the socio-economic features contained in the ESs for the three Aberdeen coastal
OWF project.
Socio-economic content in ES
Hywind
Kincardine
Aberdeen: EOWDC
Methodology: Scottish Enterprise’s economic impact assessment and additionality guidance / HM Treasury Green Book guidance
✓ ✕ ✓
Stages of development covered –construction /O&M/ decommissioning
✓ ✓ ✓
Consideration of both onshore and offshore impacts X ✓ ✓
Scale of analysis of impacts—local, regional, national
✓ ✓ ✓
Direct employment effects, including employment generation, local content and safeguarding of existing employment;
✓ ✓? ✓
Indirect employment effects; other labour market effects, such as changes in wage levels or commuting patterns;
✓? ✕ ✓?
Expenditure and income effects, including the use of local suppliers and other types of project-related expenditure;
✓ ? ✓
Displacement/ Leakage/ Multipliers used
✓ ✕ ✓
Employment impacts – no of jobs created
✓ ✓ ✓
GVA impacts – monetary impact of direct and indirect expenditure calculated
✓ ✕ ✓
Economic effects on existing commercial activities (including tourism);
✓ ✓ ✓
Effects on the development potential of the area, including changes in the image of the area or in investor confidence;
✓ ✓ ✓
Social effects/ impacts on human population and in particular local residents and community
✕ ✕ X?
Table 5: Comparative summary of socio-economic content of the ESs for the three Aberdeen
coastal ESs
Cumulative socio-economic impacts from construction were not seen as significant for the projects in
terms of a negative pressure on the local economy/workforce. However, there were perceived
opportunities in terms of developing local supply chains and skilled labour inputs, and with the
potential to attract inward investment especially for turbine manufacture, tower/substructure
28
fabrication. For the long-term O&M stage, there may be some opportunities for sharing, including for
example vessels servicing the turbines.
There is also the important innovation, and demonstration, features of the three projects. The
Aberdeen project is pioneering innovations in turbine size, cabling and control systems. The other
projects are pioneering floating windfarm technology. The Hywind ES considered that the project is
potentially a springboard to the wider opportunity for Scotland of developing expertise in floating
offshore wind, where experience gained could lead to cumulative projects -- for example, a potential
larger offshore park off the Scottish coast or in-combination with other current/future offshore projects.
(In January 2019, the Crown Estate announced support for a new study that would examine whether
building more floating wind farms could boost the Scottish economy. The project will look into
scenarios modelling differing scales of development, the impact of government policy and the
resulting levels of economic benefit).
7. Next steps
The project has raised a number of challenges, including the accessing and disaggregating of
employment and contract spend data for the construction stage of the Aberdeen project. We do
however have some useful data from Vattenfall, and from some contractors. Other challenges have
included: maximising responses for our various local stakeholder and community surveys; and going
beyond published/semi-published data, via SSE, Orsted and Statoil contacts, for the Beatrice,
Hornsea and Hywind comparative studies. On the other hand, we have benefitted from a good
working relationship with our Vattenfall contact staff, including especially the Aberdeen project Local
Community Liaison Officer. The latter contact also gave us a live insight into community engagement
for the project, including latterly the development of the Community Benefits Fund. We have also had
access to a burgeoning set of literature and research documents on OWFs.
Ongoing work in the final nine months of the project will focus on completion of the already draft
reports for each project element, and production of an overall final report addressing the project aims.
To further underpin these reports, there will be some continuing work on the socio-economic impacts
of the Aberdeen project, for the construction and, especially, the early operational stages, including
further Vattenfall, contractor data and community survey results as available; completion of the Orsted
Hornsea socio-economic impacts comparative study, plus some possible updating of the Beatrice
study into the operational stage; drawing out of any further findings from the Environmental
Statements’ review for the various EU states; and an updating of the Literature Review.
In addition to the presentations to the Steering Group, we presented some initial information on the
research to the All Energy conference in May 2018. We will make further presentations to the annual
conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) in May 2019 and to the
RenewablesUK conference (Project Delivery theme) in June 2019.
29
References
EC (2014). Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 amending Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union, L 124, 25 April 2014. Firestone J, Kempton W, and Lilley M B and Samoteskul K (2012). Public acceptance of offshore
wind power: does perceived fairness of process matter? Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 55, 10, pp1387-1402
Haggett, C (2017) EOWDC Community Benefits Baseline Study. University of Edinburgh. Hattam C, Hooper T and Papathanasopoulou, E (2015) Understanding the Impacts of Offshore
Wind Farms on Well-Being, Marine Research Report, Crown Estate
HM Treasury (2013) Green Book: Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government. London: Stationary Office (updated October 2018). Howard, R (Royal HaskoningDHV) (2013) The Bullet Proof Consent Application, paper presented at Renewables 2013 in Glasgow
IAIA (International Association for Impact Assessment) (2015) Social Impact Assessment: Guidance for assessing and managing the social impacts of projects. Fargo, USA: IAIA.
International Finance Corporation (IFC) (2012) Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability. Washington: IFC, World Bank Group.
NEF (New Economics Foundation) Consulting (2017) SSE—Beatrice Social Return on Investment (SROI) framework, NEF: London.
Regeneris (2015). Impact of Dong Energy Investments in the Humber Area. Regeneris Consulting Ltd.
RenewablesUK (2017) Offshore Wind Industry Investment in the UK: 2017 Report on offshore wind
UK content, RenewableUK
Scottish Enterprise (SE) (2008) Additionality and Economic Impact Assessment Guidance Note. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.
SQW (Segal Quince Wiksteed) (2011) Phase 2 Socio-Economic Report, Argyll Renewable
Communities, SQW
Vattenfall (2016) Aberdeen OWF Supply Chain Event. September 2016.
Wind Europe (2018) Offshore Wind in Europe—Key trends and statistics 2017. Brussels:Wind
Europe.
